Jaybees

I'm puzzled. Now Benedict XVI has had some fifty years of theological studies and has written extensively on this subject.

So you would be more accepting of his reply to the question< What is the nature of god?" than you would accept that of the Atheist Camel? http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/201...-insights.html

Juma

Says you...

What? This has nothing to do with education. This is about trustworthyness and people are never trusthworthy!

In a valid argument you should always be able to check every detail. Appeal to authority destroys this since the athorithys own reasons cannot be validated.

mountainman

Could you therefore point me to an authority of the definitions of the terms "Biblical Historian" and "Ancient Historian"?



What does my investigation have to do with your OP?



Do you know what educational institutions these scholars attended.

How impressed do you suppose I'd be if they attended "Bible College"?


This is so funny.

There is no need to apologise.

Chili

But for sure they cannot be Buddhist. They learned that from the Salt lake City event when they were looking for 'incorruptables' to prove their own righteousness, and here a China man popped up as one.

Oops, that should read: the only one

outhouse

Since when have apologetic sources been credible for historical methods?? :huh:

outhouse

This post has everything to do with education and knowledge, and those that are forced to deny it, because it goes against their uneducated opinions.

:realitycheck:

Chili

That is why they give them a PhD to show authority and then add Honorary Degrees by the dozen and will stand united to protect their own, much in the same way as Sophist will unite as "look-alikes," but philosophers they are not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead


So what we have here is an ambitious anthropologist entering the realm of religion that was just 'tall-tale-telling' to them in their [primitive] Lyceum, just as it was called "the art of Persuasion' in Greece back then that every [Dutch] Jew knows about, as they are all the same, except to Margareth Mead, of course, who went there with 'flat earth' curious eyes and wrote her name to fame.

Following this Publication by the entire College of Antropologist stood United Side-by-Side to denounce this publication by Freeman so that not only Margareth could keep her 28 Honorary PhD's, but mainly so that they could keep their own.



The real problem is that the Social Siences, such as Theology, Anthropology and Archeology have replaced philosophy now with curious eyes in the absense of Wisdom itself, and so the argument will continue without end.

outhouse

Then why would anyone consider her a authority. She obviously wasnt one.


No one has stated "appeal to authority" can be used blindly.

Toto

But you do appear to be using the appeal to authority blindly.

Chili

But 28 Honorary PhD's and later the defence they made on her behalf shows that the experts in that field still show her an authority, just as the many many theologians of the past are called experts in the field, while yet the general concensus here keeps changing. The point here: if you go to shool to say something you better say something that is niveau, or you went to school for nothing.

Just pointing at a danger, that's all.